>1)Gottingen's Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, are you as dumb stupid and> messy about Conics as Franz? Oval is the conic section, never ellipse

So why are you trying to harass people who don't even know you exist, andmay not know Franz exists? Are you trying to intimidate them into tellingthem "Stop trying to correct that Plutonium fool, let him babble his insanities in peace." ? Is this the next step into madness, the one after posting mystery "lists" of math professors over and over?

>butterfly cut

Quit trying to change the problem. This is a simple intersection, not abutterfly cut, not a moth cut, not a spider cut.

>the square pyramid replacing the cone

Again, quit trying to change the problem. Just because a problem that issomewhat similar to the conic sections has an outcome you like, doesn'tmean it proves anything about actual conic sections.

Since you can't disprove the Dandelin Spheres proof, perhaps you shouldtry to disprove the proof that Franz posted, rather than insulting him.Or just admit that you are wrong (as usual for you).